DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
In the IDS filed 12/31/2024, the citation to “U.S. Application No. 15/482,219, Filed on April 7, 2017, 50 pages” has not been submitted, so it has been crossed out.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a flow control device” in claims 1 and 20; “a sensor cleaning unit” in claims 1 and 20; “the first flow control device” in claim 11; “a first sensor cleaning unit” in claim 11; “a second flow control device” in claim 12; “a second sensor cleaning unit” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,518,754. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the conflicting claims because the instant claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, while being generally broader, or having only minor obvious differences or minor differences in language. For instance, the instant and conflicting claims include a sensor cleaning system for a sensor of an autonomous vehicle comprising a fluid source comprising a tank that stores a pressurized volume of fluid, and a flow control device located within the pressurized volume of the fluid. Additionally, regarding differences between the instant and conflicting claims, see the following discussion of the prior art for what is considered to be known and obvious to a PHOSITA.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,980. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the conflicting claims because the instant claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, while being generally broader, or having only minor obvious differences or minor differences in language. For instance, the instant and conflicting claims include a sensor cleaning system for a sensor of an autonomous vehicle comprising a fluid source comprising a tank that stores a pressurized volume of fluid, and a flow control device located within the pressurized volume of the fluid. Additionally, regarding differences between the instant and conflicting claims, see the following discussion of the prior art for what is considered to be known and obvious to a PHOSITA.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,801,808. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the conflicting claims because the instant claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, while being generally broader, or having only minor obvious differences or minor differences in language. For instance, the instant and conflicting claims include a sensor cleaning system for a sensor of an autonomous vehicle comprising a fluid source comprising a tank that stores a pressurized volume of fluid, and a flow control device located within the pressurized volume of the fluid. Additionally, regarding differences between the instant and conflicting claims, see the following discussion of the prior art for what is considered to be known and obvious to a PHOSITA.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,214,755. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the conflicting claims because the instant claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, while being generally broader, or having only minor obvious differences or minor differences in language. For instance, the instant and conflicting claims include a sensor cleaning system for a sensor of an autonomous vehicle comprising a fluid source comprising a tank that stores a pressurized volume of fluid, and a flow control device located within the pressurized volume of the fluid. Additionally, regarding differences between the instant and conflicting claims, see the following discussion of the prior art for what is considered to be known and obvious to a PHOSITA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first flow control device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2013/0092758).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a sensor cleaning system comprising: a fluid source that supplies a fluid, wherein the fluid source comprises a tank that stores a pressurized volume of the fluid (Figure 20: 10c); a flow control device, wherein the flow control device controls a flow of the fluid from the fluid source (10d); a sensor cleaning unit to clean a sensor of an autonomous vehicle using the fluid from the fluid source that is controlled by the flow control device, wherein the sensor cleaning unit is associated with the sensor (13, 14); and a controller configured to determine that the sensor requires cleaning (15; paragraphs 235-240; Figures 6, 7: S102).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Tanaka discloses wherein the fluid comprises at least one of (i) a gas or (ii) a liquid (Fig. 20: 10, 10c); wherein the gas is compressed by a compressor (10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominique et al. (US 2014/0367488; cited by Applicant) in view of Newman (US 2018/0143298; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Dominique discloses a sensor cleaning system comprising: a fluid source that supplies a fluid, wherein the fluid source comprises a tank that stores a pressurized volume of the fluid (Figure 1: 108; Figure 2: 202); a flow control device, wherein the flow control device controls a flow of the fluid from the fluid source (Figure 1: 300; Figure 2: 206); a sensor cleaning unit to clean a sensor of an autonomous vehicle using the fluid from the fluid source that is controlled by the flow control device, wherein the sensor cleaning unit is associated with the sensor (Figure 1: 304; Figure 2: 210).
Dominique does not expressly disclose a controller configured to determine that the sensor requires cleaning. Dominique does further disclose that a nozzle may be located at a windshield, headlight, or other equipment in the vehicle (paragraph 42), and there is a control unit (116) connected to a controllable valve (Figure 1: 116, 300).
Newman discloses an autonomous vehicle (abstract, paragraphs 44, 45) having a number of sensors (Figures 1-2: paragraphs 43, 47), a vehicle control system (Figure 3: 348), and sensor cleaning systems (370; paragraph 70) that receive a command or instruction from sensor processors (340) or the vehicle control system (348) to initiate a cleaning operation (paragraph 70). Newman also discloses determining if a sensor is obstructed by dirt, debris, or detritus and sending a command signal to the cleaning system to automatically remove the obstruction (abstract).
Because it is known in the art to wash other equipment and to automatically wash a sensor of a vehicle, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing automatic means of washing a sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a controller configured to determine that the sensor requires cleaning.
Regarding claims 9, and 10, are considered to be met by the combination of Dominique, in view of Newman, as relied upon as applied above and which results in: wherein the fluid comprises at least one of (i) a gas or (ii) a liquid (Dominique: abstract; paragraphs 12, 16, 35, 39); wherein the gas is compressed by a compressor (Dominique: 104; paragraph 39, 41).
Regarding claim 11 and 20, Dominique, in view of Newman, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose an autonomous vehicle, an autonomous vehicle control system, comprising: a plurality of sensors; and a sensor cleaning system that performs individualized cleaning of the plurality of sensors.
Newman discloses an autonomous vehicle (abstract, paragraphs 44, 45) having a number of sensors (Figures 1-2: paragraphs 43, 47), a vehicle control system (Figure 3: 348), and sensor cleaning systems (370; paragraph 70) that receive a command or instruction from sensor processors (340) or the vehicle control system (348) to initiate a cleaning operation (paragraph 70). Newman also discloses determining if a sensor is obstructed by dirt, debris, or detritus and sending a command signal to the cleaning system to automatically remove the obstruction (abstract).
Because it is known in the art to wash other equipment, have an autonomous vehicle with sensors, and to automatically wash a sensor of a vehicle, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing an autonomous vehicle with an automatic means of washing the sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an autonomous vehicle control system, comprising: a plurality of sensors; and a sensor cleaning system that performs individualized cleaning of the plurality of sensors.
Claims 18 and 19 are considered to be met by considered to be met by the combination of Dominique, in view of Newman, as relied upon as applied above and which results in: wherein the fluid comprises at least one of (i) a gas or (ii) a liquid (Dominique: abstract; paragraphs 12, 16, 35, 39); wherein the gas is compressed by a compressor (Dominique: 104; paragraph 39, 41).
Claim(s) 2-4, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominique et al. (US 2014/0367488; cited by Applicant), in view of Newman (US 2018/0143298; cited by Applicant), and further in view of Kikuta et al. (US 2015/0040953; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 2, and 13, Dominique, in view of Newman, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor cleaning unit comprises an air knife for cleaning the sensor; or wherein the first sensor cleaning unit comprises an air knife for cleaning the first sensor.
Kikuta discloses a cleaning device (6) for an optical sensor/camera (5) at a back door of a vehicle (2), including a movable nozzle (11) and a discharge port (11a) that is rectangular and elongated (paragraph 38; Figure 1B, 5, 12). The nozzle is connected to a liquid pump (62) to deliver a cleaning liquid and an air pump (64) to deliver air (paragraphs 40-41).
Because it is known in the art to use a nozzle with an elongated outlet to deliver cleaning liquid and/or air, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known nozzle for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sensor cleaning unit comprises an air knife for cleaning the sensor; wherein the first sensor cleaning unit comprises an air knife for cleaning the first sensor.
Claims 3-4, 14, and 15 are considered to be met by Dominique, in view of Hampton, and further in view of Kikuta, as applied above and which results in: wherein the air knife comprises a slit through which the fluid is released (Kikuta: 11a); wherein the air knife is configured such that the fluid is released through the slit perpendicular to the sensor and sweeps over a face of the sensor (Kikuta: Figures 1B, 3A, 3B, 5, 12); wherein the air knife is configured such that the fluid is released perpendicular to the first sensor and sweeps over a face of the first sensor (Kikuta: Figures 1B, 3A, 3B, 5, 12).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominique et al. (US 2014/0367488; cited by Applicant), in view of Newman (US 2018/0143298; cited by Applicant), and further in view of Hampton (US 2010/0154534; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Dominique, in view of Newman, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the flow control device is located within the pressurized volume of the fluid. Rather, Dominique discloses that the controllable valve (300, or 206) is located externally and adjacent to the volume of fluid (Figures 1, 2).
Hampton discloses a material transfer system having a vessel (108) connected to a fluid conduit (122), and a fluid control device that is a valve (120) connected to a controller via a wire and is located inside the vessel to control the connection to the conduit (Figure 1; paragraphs 41, 42).
Because it is known in the art to provide the valve inside or outside the vessel it controls fluid from exiting, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known valve/tank configuration for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the flow control device is located within the pressurized volume of the fluid.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominique et al. (US 2014/0367488; cited by Applicant), in view of Newman (US 2018/0143298; cited by Applicant), and further in view of Fukuyo et al. (US 5,333,836; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 16, and 17, Dominique, in view of Newman, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the flow control device comprises a solenoid, the solenoid configured to control a respective flow of the fluid; wherein the solenoid is located within the flow control device; or wherein the first flow control device comprises a solenoid, the solenoid configured to control the first flow of the fluid; wherein the solenoid is located within the first flow control device. Rather, Dominique discloses that the controllable valve (300, or 206) is located externally and adjacent to the volume of fluid (Figures 1, 2).
Fukuyo discloses a solenoid valve having a housing (1) and a core assembly (2) and a coil assembly (3) mounted in the housing (Figure 1; col. 2, lines 60-63).
Because it is known in the art to provide a solenoid valve and a solenoid in a housing, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known electronically controlled valve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the flow control device comprises a solenoid, the solenoid configured to control a respective flow of the fluid; wherein the solenoid is located within the flow control device; or wherein the first flow control device comprises a solenoid, the solenoid configured to control the first flow of the fluid; wherein the solenoid is located within the first flow control device
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights